Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam (2015 film)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to Draft space. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sam (2015 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

inadequate references for notability; very minor prizes  DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as it does seem to have received reliable sources coverage for example at a number of the links from this page here though not all of them are correct links, but am not seeing many reviews which could be due to its main release not having happened yet. It was nominated for a major award at one of the main film festivals - Nashville but did not win. All in all, think there is enough coverage for a borderline pass of WP:GNG but more reviews would be very helpful. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak delete as per DGG changing !vote to Keep based on improvement by Theys York BlueSalix (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC) BlueSalix (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I put more sources that prove that the article is relevant. Moreover, it is not any movie that is recorded with Arri Alexa. In Brazil a miniseries and a telenovela gained notoriety after producing disclose who used Alexa. One of the titles went to the cinema, gaining great prominence.Theys York (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I gather you are saying that another film of his was notable, not that this one is. It is only for famous directors that every film is likely to be notable.  DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't appear to me to yet meet NFILM. For example, in the list of links provided by Atlantic306, there's a mention in Variety -- but not a full review. And that's all I really find, in reliable sources: mentions. It may just be too soon, but we don't yet see the substantial coverage one might expect, especially for the directorial debut of the son of Mel Brooks -- who I see also does not yet have a biographical article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There are 3 websites that have complete articles about the film. One, two, three. If the film entering the Cannes Film Festival, will certainly have more sources. Delete unnecessary. It would be better to do a redirect, as here.Theys York (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It has also this article from Variety, announcing the distribution of the film next month by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.Theys York (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane 2007  talk 02:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment strike through my delete. While not all sources linked to above are bona fide reliable sources we do seem to be inching in the direction of notability and I'm not sure what purpose would be served by deletion for an article that seems to be more just a matter of time, once the film enters commercial distribution or simply accrues more festival reviews, as it seems likely to do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A little late but better than never. I don't see enough of an adequate consensus. WikiPuppies bark dig 19:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Move to Draft:Sam (2015 film) - while reviews and festivals are generally good for showing notability of a feature film, notability cannot be demonstrated on the sole basis of reviews and festivals alone. There is only one type of source that's neither a review nor festival and its just barely enough to suggest that the Sam (2015 film) may or may not receive significant coverage, as it was picked up by a major film company. Coverage for the most part is relatively insignificant, as most of the sources make only a brief mention, but as a whole, do not cover the Sam (2015 film). Besides the screendaily.com source, reviews have been the only sources to give in depth information. What we have here is just barely enough to keep this article (for now) . I say we give this one some time, as per the concerns by Shawn in Montreal. If coverage does not improve, then I wouldn't be opposed to a 2nd nomination and re-opening of this discussion. — Mythdon 00:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote, after further consideration, drafting allows to the content to be preserved, whilst keeping the article out of the article space until/unless there is more significant coverage. Since some films receive more coverage following release, rather than before, but given the absence of significant enough coverage at this moment, and while my above sentiments do still stand, I had forgotten all about draft pages. As I had previously stated, the page should be deleted if there is not more coverage following the release, but at the same time, I don't want my arguments about preserving the content at this moment to be as if I'm looking into a crystal ball, but while I don't think this page as it stood should have been created when it was created, because its already been creating, it would be moot at this particular moment to delete the page wholesale pending given time which more sources may or may not start to exist (as does happen with some films as I previously mentioned). Had I remembered that there are draft pages, I would have voted to move to a draft from the start. If there is more coverage following release, then move back to article space. Procedural change in vote, rather than an actual change in opiniion. — Mythdon 04:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Draftify per WP:TOOSOON as not yet meeting WP:NFILM. Even with the recent improvements I don't see sufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Draftify This doesn't satisfy WP:NFILM as of yet. However from the looks of it, there may be more sources available in a year. I had a look at the reviews posted, but I do not really consider them as RS. Accordingly I think the best suggestion is to draft it. I'm pretty sure if it screened a bit more, there will be reliable sources talking about it, but till then keeping it in article space is WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the improvements to the article have not been convincing, unfortunately. Sourcing is weak and I don't see any indications of notability yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiPuppies  bark dig 19:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Draftify. Current coverage is weak, but that can be expected to improve as we get closer to the release date.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Draftify. It'll be released later this month.  There's a good chance it will get more coverage then.  What we've got now are mostly press releases, announcements, and what look like self-published reviews to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Draftify per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.